Rob--
You wrote:
[2nd statement]
"SFC requires that the majority of voters who prefer the Condorcet
candidate to another particular candidate vote sincerely (neither
falsify nor truncate their preferences), and it also requires that no
other voter falsifies preferences"
If the second statement is false, I'd like to understand how the
"Strategy Free Criterion" can be truthfully called "Strategy Free".
I reply:
SFC's premise stipulates that the majority that it refers to vote sincerely,
and that no one falsify preferences. That's probably what the abovequoted
statement means, and, if so, then it is correct. But of course it is not a
complete definition of SFC, and isn't even a complete statement of SFC's
premise.
As I said, SFC describes plausible conditions under which voters don't need
strategy in order to defeat someone they like less than the CW.
I said "..don't need strategy...". That's the strategy-freeness that SFC
describes and is named for.
About the electowiki, yes, delete that SFC definition that you quoted.
Replace it with the one that I posted. I claim the right to say what SFC is,
since I first proposed it:
So post this at the electowiki:
Strategy-Free Criterion (SFC):
If no one falsifies a preference, and if a majority prefer the CW to
candidate Y, and vote sincerely, then Y shouldn't win.
[end of SFC definition]
And add this:
Of course, though it's convenient to word the criterion that way, it isn't
really necessary that no one falsify a preference. It's only necessary that
people don't falsify preferences in sufficient numbers to change the
election result.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
